As the third Harry Potter novel makes its way to the big screen,
the hardcore fans will no doubt thrill to see their favorite characters
return, played by the actors whove come to embody them (except for
Professor Dumbledore, now played by Michael Gambon due to the passing
of the great Richard Harris). But more casual fans, who are simply looking
for a good movie, would do better to take note of the films most
important new addition. Alfonso Cuaron replaces Chris Columbus in the
directors chair, and his impact is significant.

While the first two Potter films were easily the best work of Columbuss
career, they were still as tame and uninspired as the rest of his lackluster
oeuvre, which features forgettable hits like Home Alone and Mrs.
Doubtfire.

Cuaron, a Mexican director best known for his sexy road flick Y tu mama
tambien, imbues Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban with a
welcome sense of dark humor and an inspired visual flair that Columbus
never could have mustered. Its also great to see Gary Oldman, one
of the perennial heavyweights of overacting, appear in a role where the
majority of his screen time consists of a screaming mug shot, endlessly
looped on magical wanted posters throughout the film. Oldman plays the
recently escaped prisoner of the films title, who of course is intent
on ending the spell-casting career of the heralded Mr. Potter.

In his third year at Hogwarts, Harry is still the campus superstar and
Quidditch hero. He still draws the ire of the wily Professor Snape (played
to the hilt by Alan Rickman). He has the same group of friends (a collection
of child actors whove improved greatly over the last few years),
an ever growing collection of enemies, and the expected new assortment
of mystical creatures (like the skeletal soul-sucking Dementors) and oddball
classes (Emma Thompsons quirky, nearly-blind Professor Sybil Trelawney
lectures on crystal ball gazing and how to divine the future from tea
leaves).

The films complicated yet entertaining climax, involving time travel,
a conniving rat, an angry werewolf and plenty of magical wand-waving,
packs more punch than the previous two films, both of which overstayed
their welcome by about 30 minutes. The Prisoner of Azkaban runs
a little long as well, but its still a far more kinetic 142 minutes
than its predecessors. Lets hope that like the young, trouble-making
wizard himself, Potters filmmakers will continue to take risks,
however slight, with their billion-dollar franchise. (PG) Rating: 4; Posted
6/4/04

Spring,
Summer, Fall, Winter...and SpringReviewed by Russ Simmons

Given the short attention span of contemporary moviegoers, those weaned
on Hollywood action films and MTV music videos, its is hard to imagine
a film like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring holding
their interest.

A deliberately paced and (dare I say it?) Zen-like movie, this story of
the life of a Buddhist monk floats quietly on the screen, just like the
boat where the focal character lives.

This Korean language entry from filmmaker Ki-duk Kim (The Isle)
is as universal a story as youre likely to come upon. The elements
of the plot are easy to relate to even though the people in the film live
lives of austerity utterly alien to most of us.

The story is presented in five distinct segments. Spring shows
a young boy who has been left to study with an elderly monk. Their monastery
is a floating houseboat in the middle of a placid and remote lake, hidden
deep in a Korean valley. In this isolated locale, the lad learns lessons
in morality that, to his detriment, doesnt always sink in.

The ensuing segments depict the subsequent phases of his life.

In Summer, he is a virile youth, who allows himself to fall
prey to his own lusts. In Fall, he commits a heinous act that
leaves a deep scar on his soul. In Winter, he seeks atonement
for his sins through intense self-discipline. In Spring, the
story comes full circle.

Ki-duk Kim (who also plays the adult monk in the films final two
segments) relies heavily on the visuals to tell the story. There is so
little dialogue, in fact, that the subtitles are rendered virtually irrelevant.
The cinematography, by Dong-hyeon Baek, becomes the wordplay, and the
resulting images are often quite stunning.

The themes in Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall and Spring are
presented in a gentle, matter-of-fact manner, but they can hardly be called
subtle. If it werent for the meticulous filmmaking on display here,
one might be tempted to dismiss the entire enterprise as overly simplistic.

But there are deeper veins of truth that run through the film. Those who
are Buddhists or those well versed in Buddhist traditions will probably
best appreciate the film, but even a child could grasp the core lessons
that the filmmakers expound.

Depending on ones point of view, the film is either deeply moving
or painfully languid. In either case, its a beautifully crafted
work. (R) Rating: 3.5; Posted 6/4/04

Life
of Brian
Reviewed by Uri Lessing

After The Passion of the Christ hit theaters this spring, reaction
was polarized. Some saw the movie as a religious experience that allowed
them to truly understand the suffering that Jesus went through. Others
saw it as sick, sadomasochist garbage designed, not to express the teachings
of Christ, but to incite anger towards non-believers. As this controversy
slowly disappears from the public eye, we see the re-release of another
religious film that caused just as much controversy 25 years ago for completely
different reasons.

Monty Pythons Life of Brian follows a young man whose life
parallels Jesus. As an infant he is visited by the three wise men when
they accidentally stop at the wrong manger. Thirty-three years later,
poor Brian is a mess. He attends the Sermon of the Mount but just cant
make out the words due to the bickering of people around him. (Blessed
are the cheese makers?)

When Brian joins a guerilla movement to fight against the Romans, events
lead to him being mistaken for the Son of God. Of course, the Romans will
have none of this, and Brian is crucified. Things dont look so bad
though, as Brian and other crucified victims sing the rousing ballad,
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.

The film viscously pokes fun at different approaches to religion. The
Judean Peoples Front is an underground organization that never can
quite get out of the planning stages and fights endlessly with the Peoples
Front of Judea. The followers of Brian take their messiahs discarded
gourd and sandal, and hold them up as sacred relics. Sick people show
up on Brians door demanding healing. When Brian shouts out to a
mob of followers that they must all be individuals, they shout back in
unison, Yes, we all must be individuals. (When one person
says softly, Im not, he is shushed into silence.)

Life of Brian was unfairly criticized for being an anti-Jesus film.
However, the Pythons never attack Jesus or his teachings. Their targets
are those religious zealots who take Jesus simple messages of peace
and love and use them as crutches or as cries for war and persecution.
The Passion of the Christ may have been successful in capturing
the pain and suffering that Jesus experienced when he died for the sins
of humanity. Who knows? But Life of Brian successfully captures
the pain and suffering humanity goes through every day at the hands of
these lunatics and blind followers of religion.

And unlike Mel Gibson, the Pythons are pretty damn funny.

Life of Brian is playing exclusively at the Rio Theater. (R) Rating:
5; Posted 6/4/04

Raising
HelenReviewed by Liz Sweeney

Kate Hudson has become the Meg Ryan of the new millennium. She is bubbly,
cute and attractive to both men and women in a benign, genial kind of way.
After her celebrated breakout performance in Almost Famous, lightweight
parts have become her forte. Moviegoers familiar with Hudson's character
from the 2003 romantic comedy, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days will
recognize her as essentially the same person in Raising Helen:
a career-minded but fun-loving single woman, working successfully in a glamorous
industry and enjoying easy, party-girl access to the hottest nightclubs.
Another ready parallel is the flagrancy with which colossal contrivances
keep the story in motion.

Helen Harris works at a successful modeling agency, as the assistant
to the stereotypically cruel and exacting chieftain, Dominique (Helen
Mirren), who incongruously casts a benevolent eye over Helen. When Helen¹s
closest sister Lindsay dies suddenly, custody of Lindsay's children is
bequeathed to Helen, despite Jenny, the family's older sister, qualifying
as a supremely capable suburban mom. Helen's glitterati existence is just
a contrived set up for this plot point. A dead mother, affluent lifestyles
and copious amounts of sentimentality, interspersed with expedient life
lessons, make for an opiate for the masses. This should be no surprise
to anyone who has seen the trailers or is familiar with director Gary
Marshall's soporific but supremely marketable work (Happy Days,
Laverne & Shirley, Pretty Woman).

Joan Cusack plays the stable but matronly sister Jenny. In her first
scene she reacts to Helen's flamboyant entrance with vexation, using her
trademark ability to simultaneously beam and appear on the verge of tears.
When Helen's life is upended by the sudden responsibility of the children,
Jenny comes to Helen¹s rescue many times, teaching her about motherhood
and responsibility. In the meantime, Pastor Dan (John Corbett), the children's
new Lutheran school principal, woos a reluctant Helen. Fans who have followed
Corbett since his days on Northern Exposure may find this new
incarnation creepy. Pastor Dan is a kindly but a patronizing do-gooder
who offers Helen with unsolicited parenting advice. How the two end up
together relies on contrivances that are sadly characteristic of the genre.

Despite its crassness, and again echoing How to Lose a Guy,
Raising Helen is hoisted to higher ground by some jolly one-liners
and the unrelenting affability of Hudson. While many filmgoers will recognize
and object to the engineered sentimentality, they may nevertheless find
themselves hypnotically raising a hanky to catch unbidden tears. Such
is the palliative nature of so many Gary Marshall enterprises. (PG-13)
Rating: 2; Posted 5/31/04

Super
Size Me
Reviewed by Liz Sweeney

As an irreverent attack on the fast food industry, Super Size Me
is a plainly partisan but persuasive and entertaining documentary directed
by Morgan Spurlock, a human guinea pig willing to sacrifice his health
for his art.

Personifying the dramatic declining health of Americans, Spurlock undertakes
a month-long experiment, consuming nothing but food from McDonald's restaurants.
Inspired by lawsuits that were filed against McDonald's on behalf of overweight
children, the film expands to offer a sampling of different health and
lifestyle issues, from school lunch and P.E. deficiencies, to brand imprinting,
food addiction and the extremes of weight reduction. How audiences stomach
the remonstrations may correlate highly with their love of a Big Mac.

By turns comedic and dramatic, both the strength and flaw of Super
Size Me lie in embodying the statistical evidence. Beginning with
a recitation of health stats, the voiceover is undercut with images of
obesity and the ubiquity of fast food chains. There are four McDonald¹s
per square mile in Manhattan, some to be found inside hospitals.

Prior to his McBinge, Spurlock undergoes a series of medical tests with
a variety of specialist doctors to determine baseline health measures.
He appears to be in good, above average shape. In keeping with the satirical
tone, Spurlock's girlfriend is a vegan, and she prepares his "Last
Supper," an organic, vegetarian meal.

For the next month, he abides by three rules: he can only eat what is
available over the counter at McDonald's; no supersizing unless offered;
and he has to eat every item on the menu at least once. He also tries
to maintain the activity level of the average office worker by taking
cabs and limiting his usual New Yorker walking.

While Americans are familiar with the general idea that fast food is
unhealthy, Spurlock examines the issue of personal versus corporate responsibility.
Samuel Hirsch, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the McDonald's lawsuit,
argued that the public might generally understand fast food is not health
food, but does not realize just how bad it can be. Spurlock attempts to
find nutritional information inside McDonald's restaurants with poor results,
begging the question of just how one can exercise personal responsibility
without the necessary data at hand.

By Day 13 of the experiment, Spurlock has consumed an average 5,000 calories
per day, twice as much as the recommended daily intake. Not surprisingly
he has also gained a dramatic 16 lbs. His cholesterol and blood pressure
have skyrocketed, and his liver is ailing; he is having headaches, body
pains, mood swings and his sex life is suffering. By Day 21 his doctors
are fervently urging him to give up the experiment.

Since the success of Super Size Me at Sundance, McDonald's has
increasingly touted its healthier side. Although denying the film's claims,
the company promoted new initiatives just three weeks after the announcement
of the Sundance lineup. Not mentioned in the film is that James Cantalupo,
the CEO and chairman of McDonald's, died on April 19 from an apparent
heart attack during a convention of franchisees. He was 60.

After his experiment, Spurlock swore off McDonald's for a year. After
Super Size Me filmgoers may never relish a Mac Attack in quite
the same way again. (Not Rated) Rating: 4; Posted 5/31/04

The
contents of eKC are the property of Discovery Publications,
Inc., and protected under Copyright.
No portion may be reproduced in whole or part by any means without
the permission of the publisher. Read our Privacy
Policy.